[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 156 (Thursday, September 28, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6199-S6200]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Nomination of Ajit Pai

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, today we begin debate on a position in our 
government that impacts the daily lives of every single American. If 
you use a telephone, connect to the internet, watch television, and pay 
a big cable company to do all of those things, then you need to know 
who Ajit Pai is.
  President Trump nominated Ajit Pai to be the Chairman of the Federal 
Communications Commission. While Ajit Pai has devoted many years to 
public service, I cannot support his nomination. Under Mr. Pai's short 
tenure, he has made the FCC stand for ``forgetting consumers and 
competition.''
  Let's take a look at who is getting a piece of the FCC pie under 
Chairman Pai. It is American consumers on the one hand versus big 
corporations on the other hand. Let's take a piece of this pie and 
determine who is getting that first slice of what is going on at the 
Federal Communications Commission.
  Let's look at net neutrality. Net neutrality is the basic principle 
that says that all internet traffic is treated equal. Net neutrality 
ensures that internet service providers like AT&T, Charter, Verizon, 
and Comcast do not block, slow down, censor, or prioritize internet 
traffic.
  If Ajit Pai gets his way, a handful of big broadband companies will 
serve as gatekeepers to the internet. Fewer voices, less choice, no 
competition, but more profits for the big broadband companies--that is 
Pai's formula. Yet it is today's net neutrality rules that ensure that 
those with the best ideas, not merely the best funded ideas, can thrive 
in the 21st-century economy. It is net neutrality that has been the 
internet's chief governing principle since its inception.
  Consider that today essentially every company is an internet 
company. In 2016, almost half of the venture capital funds invested in 
this country went toward internet-specific and software companies. That 
is $25 billion of investment. Half of all venture capital in America 
went toward internet-specific and software companies--half of all 
venture capital.

  To meet America's insatiable demand for broadband internet, the U.S. 
broadband and telecommunications industry invested more than $87 
billion in capital expenditures in 2015. That is the highest rate of 
annual investment in the last 10 years.
  So we have hit a sweet spot. Investment in broadband and wireless 
technologies is very high. Job creation is very high. Venture capital 
investment in online startups is very high. That is why more than 22 
million Americans wrote to the Federal Communications Commission to 
make their voices heard about net neutrality. They do not want it 
repealed. Yet Chairman Pai's proposal would decimate the FCC's open 
internet order.
  Chairman Pai has said: ``We need to fire up the weed whacker'' to net 
neutrality rules. Do we really want a leader at the Federal 
Communications Commission who, ultimately, is going to implement the 
agenda of the big broadband companies, which want to crush competition, 
reduce choice, and then make consumers pay more?
  So the first slice of this pie of killing net neutrality goes to the 
big corporations, and the losers are the consumers.
  Let's go to the next slice of the FCC pie. Let's see where that goes 
as these decisions are being made. The next issue is, in fact, 
broadband privacy.

[[Page S6200]]

  Chairman Pai has actively supported efforts to allow broadband 
providers to use, share, and sell your sensitive information without 
consumer consent. In 2016, Chairman Pai voted against commonsense 
broadband privacy protections that gave consumers meaningful control 
over their sensitive information. When he assumed the FCC chairmanship, 
Ajit Pai stopped the implementation of data security protections, which 
would have ensured that broadband providers better protect the 
information they collect about their users. Can you imagine that? 
Chairman Pai stopped protections that would improve data security.
  I have 143 million reasons as to why that was a bad idea. Just this 
month, Equifax was subjected to a cyber attack that compromised the 
personally identifiable information of 143 million consumers. The 
American public wants more protection, not less. Yet what does Chairman 
Pai do? He effectively eliminates the very data security protections 
that consumers need to protect their sensitive information. That is 
just plain wrong.
  Just a few weeks later, Mr. Pai supported congressional Republicans' 
efforts to rescind the Federal Communications Commission's broadband 
privacy protections. Now your broadband provider can relentlessly 
collect and sell your sensitive web browsing history without your 
consent.
  You may wonder why Chairman Pai would actively support efforts to 
undermine the privacy of American consumers. The answer is simple. He 
wants that slice of the pie to go to the biggest corporations. How do 
they use it? They take that data--your personal data, the information 
you put online--and just sell it without your permission in order to 
make money for the big corporations. Once again, rather than consumers, 
the big corporations get the benefit of that decision at the Federal 
Communications Commission.
  Let's take a look at the next issue. The next issue goes to the 
question of mergers, the mergers of big telecommunications companies.
  The Sinclair deal has led to a proposal to merge with Tribune Media, 
granting one company an unprecedented market power of over 200 
broadcast stations around the country. In order to help Sinclair, Ajit 
Pai reinstated what most consider to be an antiquated rule, the UHF 
discount, to pave the way for the merger. The UHF discount makes the 
FCC count only half of the stations on certain frequencies toward 
companies' ownership percentages. This merger would allow Sinclair to 
reach into 72 percent of American households, but with the discount, 
the FCC counts it as only 45 percent. Putting this discount back on the 
books is Chairman Pai's first step to helping Sinclair stay within the 
national ownership cap of 39 percent.
  What will be the impact of this massive telecommunications mega-
merger? Less local news, sports, and weather that millions of Americans 
count on today. It will lead to the continued squeezing out of 
independent programmers, and it will mean higher prices for consumers. 
What signal does approving this merger reveal? It reveals that the FCC 
and Ajit Pai have put out the welcome mat for the consolidation of 
other communications companies.
  So this third slice, once again, goes to corporations and not to 
consumers. They are left out in the cold.
  Let's look at the fourth slice and see what happens with that at the 
Federal Communications Commission under the approval of Ajit Pai's 
nomination on the floor of the Senate. The next slice is one that deals 
with the education rate, or the E-rate.
  The E-rate has proven to be exceptional in linking up schools and 
libraries to the internet. We went from a country in 1996 in which only 
14 percent of K-12 classrooms had internet access to a near ubiquitous 
deployment today. The E-rate has ensured that students from working-
class neighborhoods can connect just like students from more affluent 
communities. The E-rate democratizes access to the opportunities and 
technologies that lead to bright futures. Over $44 billion to date has 
been committed nationwide.
  Again, Ajit Pai does not take that perspective. At his confirmation 
hearing in July, I explicitly asked him whether he would commit to 
preserving the success of this bipartisan program and protecting the 
funding level or whether he would make programmatic changes that could 
undermine or weaken the E-rate. He would not make this commitment to 
maintain current funding for E-rate.
  Students and library users around the country will not be able to 
afford this slice of the pie. Once again, consumers will lose and 
corporations will win.
  Now we go to the final slice of that communications pie at the FCC.
  Telecommunication is the great equalizer, but a household with no 
access to basic telecommunications services could lose educational and 
employment opportunities as well as emergency services. That is why the 
FCC's Lifeline Program is truly a lifeline for millions of Americans 
who are able to connect to the world. In Massachusetts alone, more than 
180,000 low-income Bay Staters rely on the Lifeline Program to access 
voice and internet service.
  The value of this universal service has always been a bedrock of our 
telecommunications policy. Yet one of Ajit Pai's first actions as FCC 
Chairman was to undermine Lifeline and make it more difficult for low-
income people to access affordable broadband. I was dismayed by his 
decision to abruptly revoke the recognition of nine additional 
companies as Lifeline broadband providers just weeks after they were 
approved. Mr. Pai's action did nothing but unfairly punish low-income 
consumers by limiting choice.
  So the final slice, again, goes to the Federal Communications 
Commission's supporting corporations and not supporting consumers.
  That is the pie--the FCC pie--as it is put together on net 
neutrality, on privacy, on mergers, on E-rate, and on Lifeline. It is 
all the same. The FCC winds up standing for forgetting consumers and 
competition. That is the era that we are now in, and it will only 
intensify as each day, week, and month goes by. That is why I am 
recommending a ``no'' vote on Ajit Pai as the Chairman of the Federal 
Communications Commission.
  Which side are we going to be on--that of the consumers or 
corporations? Are we going to side with innovators? Are we going to 
side with those who are trying to continue to take these platforms of 
dynamic change in our society for consumers, for entrepreneurs or are 
we going to allow for a closing of this revolution?
  This is the era in which we live in the 21st century. This is the 
choice that people must make. In which direction are we going?
  I urge a ``no'' vote by my colleagues on Ajit Pai's nomination. Of 
all of the things that we are going to do this year, this is very near 
the top of the list. In many ways, this telecommunications revolution 
is the organizing principle of our lives here in the United States and 
around the planet, and we have to make sure that we are heading in the 
right direction--more openness, more competition, more consumer 
protection, more privacy protection, and more access in libraries and 
schools to these technologies, not fewer and fewer and fewer and fewer. 
It is just the wrong direction to head in. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.